It is never clear what "moderate" means in a political sense. It seems to be used most often by people who are reluctant to voice their political leanings in attempt to be polite.I largely agree, I think most when people say that they want a “moderate” or “centrist” candidate, usually they’re referring to what they perceive as the candidate’s temperament rather than any actual position or set of positions on the issues.

A moderate position on civil liberties may be believing in a right to have an abortion as well as a right to own and carry a firearm.

More than likely a “moderate” position would be saying that you conceptually believe in the right to either but support “reasonable restrictions” on that right without wanting to get into the messy details of what does and does not constitute a “reasonable restriction.”

I'm not so sure it's just "moderate Democrats" becoming "new Independents" at all: there's a bunch of conservatives dissatisfied with the GOP - and the Beltway elites - swelling the ranks of the none-of-above "Independents", too.

...I suspect "none-of-the-above" is probably more correct than "centrist" in that case.

More than likely a “moderate” position would be saying that you conceptually believe in the right to either but support “reasonable restrictions” on that right without wanting to get into the messy details of what does and does not constitute a “reasonable restriction.”

I think most when people say that they want a “moderate” or “centrist” candidate, usually they’re referring to what they perceive as the candidate’s temperament rather than any actual position or set of positions on the issues.

I think there's something to that. Most people want competent, pragmatic leaders and are rightly wary of strident, narrow minded ideologues. Unfortunately, the primary system doesn't favor mainstream politicians.

More to my point, I consider myself fiscally conservative and more socially libertarian. Which means I almost always vote Republican, especially in the larger elections. Yet I don't consider myself a Republican and would most likely answer Independent to a survey like this one.

Given the recent goings on with the Tea Party and the general distaste of Congress as a whole, I can see why people would want to seem independent from that.

I don't know anyone on the left that wants less first amendment rights.

But, but, but: Citizens United! And we have one of the leading anti-free speech lefties right here in town: Russ Feingold of the unconstitutional speech restricting McCain/Feingold Incumbent Protection Act fame.

I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing that less free speech could sometimes be good for the nation. Aside from a time of war, that's just never true. You see what the so-called 'hate speech' laws have gotten us: a great tool for silencing critics of the Left.

"During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations."

But advertising and releasing In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, The Green Zone, Farhenheit 911, Sicko, etc. are wholly different than Hillary: The Movie.

"The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns."

Modern Liberalism is pretty much buying votes. Its overriding theme is: "Vote for us and we will spend more of other peoples money on you. The conservatives want to spend less of it on you." That's the the whole program, and both sides agree about it.

I don't know what the basis is for claiming that "independent" means "moderate". All it means is you don't think either party represents you.

We have a socially liberal big-government party and a socially conservative big-government, big-military party with a small-government insurgency. That leaves a lot of Americans without a home, politically.

And allows unlimited spending by corporations from their general treasury. One little movie nobody seen, to that. Funny how that all worked out isn't it? But if you want to go to the Capitol, with four or more people, you need a permit, can't take photos, and you may need money to exercise free speech. Or in Kenosha County, a sign can't be more than 4" wide if on public land?

That's right wing version of free speech. Free speech/unlimited money for the right's biggest donors, and restrictions up the ass on left wing speech.

"Funny how that all worked out isn't it?"-- There are some penumbras occasionally for a variety of rights, it looks!

"But if you want to go to the Capitol, with four or more people, you need a permit, can't take photos, and you may need money to exercise free speech. Or in Kenosha County, a sign can't be more than 4" wide if on public land?"-- Time, manner and place limitations? The devil, you say!

"That's right wing version of free speech. Free speech/unlimited money for the right's biggest donors, and restrictions up the ass on left wing speech."

Curious, how do you Unions fit into this warped political view you have? Seems to me they have always been able to spend countless amounts of money on candidates without nary a whisper of malfeasance from the left.

And allows unlimited spending by corporations from their general treasury.1)As Justice Roberts pointed out, the CU decision allows all associations of citizens, whether non-profit, union, or incorporated, to purchase platforms for free speech. I don't think that tilts in favor of a certain political ideology. 2) Only 1 of the top 20 political donor organizations in this country tilts Republican, so this is "right wing" friendly how?3) The only corporation that can apparently spend UNLIMITED amounts, is the big Democrat backer and bailout recipient Goldman Sachs. All others would eventually go bankrupt.

But if you want to go to the Capitol, with four or more people, you need a permitYou always were required to get a permit to demonstrate at the Capitol. It's just that last year's crowds ignored that fact and it went unenforced.

As for Kenosha, do you mean the incident where the Sheriff correctly implemented the longstanding state DOT regulation that stipulates that political signs can only be: "put up less than 45 days before [an] election" and must be "removed within one week after the election".

Maybe you're claiming that the "left-wing" is inherently incapable of expressing itself within the law and is therefor at a disadvantage?

Maybe you're claiming that the "left-wing" is inherently incapable of expressing itself within the law and is therefor at a disadvantage?

Then what was up with the groaning about not being able to show a movie about Hillary during campaign season? Also, I don't recall ever requiring a permit to enter the Capitol, no matter how many people were there. Sorry for the short reply, fire to put out.

"Moderate" has always been vague. Especially as both sides try to redefine it to suit themselves. More the to point here, the fact that so many Americans are identifying with Independent reflects, IMO, a growing view that the two party system has left them with two parties, neither of which they find acceptable.

Then what was up with the groaning about not being able to show a movie about Hillary during campaign season?

I believe the groaning was that documentary wasn't able to be advertised.

You might want to be careful with this, GM — think if the shoe was on the other foot ... and you weren't able to advertise your Anti-Walker movie because the government of Scott Walker told you that you couldn't.

I think there's a difference between rules for convening a rally and whether or not you can distribute a film.

However, I tend to agree that even the limits placed on free speech that you mentioned should be minor and simple for all.

Yiddishe Bloyger said..."I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing that less free speech could sometimes be good for the nation."

Sure it could. Let's take a simple example: How about a law restricting pharmacies from selling records that reveal the prescribing practices of individual doctors to drug companies? Whether you'd support it or not, you you don't see how one could make a serious argument in favor of that law?

garage mahal said..."I don't know anyone on the left that wants less [read 'fewer'] first amendment rights."

Hasn't the left waged a two eyar war on Citizens United, demanding a Constitutional amendment that strips people and groups of people of their first amendment rights if they choose to organize themselves using a coroprate form?